About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
not know what that means, but clearly that would be uncomfortable. in reality, the obama administration has said it will consider proposals from states aimed at finding better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs. factcheck.org and the washington post fact checker have said the same, that the claim is false. [applause] what do you say? >> allow me to respond. >> the truth tour begins tonight. [laughter] >> i should have set that up to point out that the beginning of that was hermann cain maintain the same point the romney campaign had, that the obama administration is getting rid of the work requirement. what i thought that showed was the importance of fact checkers in this campaign. i really think, and brandon and glenn and i were talking about how things are different this time compared to 2008. there is more fact checking than ever, and the fact checking has a much greater prominence this time. candidates are being asked about it. i got a call from cnn last night -- they had asked mitt romney in a interview about how the fact checkers had looked at that and other ads. this year,
to provide for themselves and their families. i think that is why the obama administration's objective is essentially using bread and circuses to make as many people as possible dependent on government, to keep voting democratic, is not succeeding. americans want to stand on their own feet. >> that is the craziest thing i ever heard of my life. you are accusing the president of united states of using a government program to manipulate people do not get a job, to be dependent on the government for services? impressed. we are a few minutes and -- >> let me finish. pressed we're a few minutes and and you have now three times call me crazy on observing that the president has expanded government dependency. >> you are saying he is manipulating american civil democratic. -- so they will vote democratic. >> let's talk about the issue of benefits. in 1960, 20% -- of federal spending went to individual spent -- payments. this year, 65% of federal spending goes to individual payments. i would suggest we do have a problem with government -- >> we had a downturn in the economy. we of hard times, p
of the obama administration. if i understand it correctly, i was busy dodging other kinds of projectiles in iraq at the time. if i understand this correctly, this is a deeply idealistic effort to try to say, we are not only going to give money, not only have an impact with a fairly large, civilian assistance program to balance our ongoing military commitment to pakistan, but we are also going to set up a structure or relationship to what is generally called the strategic partnership to try to mbreak out of that pattern. after 2008 and 2009, those of you who knew richard knew the hurricane hit pakistan and there was a set of very ambitious goals that were put in to try to build a long-term commitment to pakistan. i use long-term advisedly. america is focused on the counter-terrorism after post- 9/11. by the almost a pistol logical elements -- epistemological element, this was to balance that short-term set of needs. american safety, the safety of the pack as any people. to balance that with a commitment of long-term stability, and a vision with pakistan of a long-term stability in pakista
. i thought but something could have happened at the beginning of the obama administration, but it has not been possible. in the event that took place in lebanon, they continue to happen. the israelis of the question of iran, they claim that they are open to negotiations. but that does not happen. i don't know how things are going to of all but the beginning of the year. i know the election will take place in israel and will likely take place in the year. let's see what the situation is, if it is something that has been taken here already. [indiscernible] and that can be something that we can ultimately love that. maybe we have the possibility of a new scheme. it is something that is very important. what we have allowed to happen, things that should not happen, we haven't spoken of the monarchists. it is true. if we apply the same measures to bahrain, it will be a difficult situation. it is true that bahrain, nothing will happen [indiscernible] but saudi arabia should be more open and given to balance. it is ruled by the minority. that answers the other big battle that is being played,
in this country. the obama administration has focused on fixing failing schools and there has been a laser focus on effectiveness in treating -- teaching. the mitt romney campaign has little interest in proving schools -- in improving schools as well. providing vouchers for parents. neither side is recognizing those reforms will be far less successful of children are given a poor foundation in the first place. if kids are growing up in an popper's conditions and have little access to the rich, curiosity driven conversations they need in those young couriers, those reforms will not go anywhere. until we start getting serious about the problem we're talking about today. schools will put up lots of resources. we really need children to be of enormous with theirs focus of flexible thinking, deeper background knowledge in multiple subject matters and the way they're integrated into today's world. wouldn't it be smarter as thinking of them as education dollars? our investment as a country, wouldn't it be smarter to use those investments to be fought loading? to make sure that we are setting children u
deported more folks -- this administration, they say, has deported more focused than any other. >> well, the bush administration. >> we know that, since 2004, the number of border patrol agents have doubled in this country and that, president obama, he called for an increase to avert 21,000 border patrol agents. since 2007, revenue going toward border security has increased 55%. and we also see, for instance, in terms of mexicans coming to the united states, that is at net zero right now. to suggest that somehow our borders are not secure, if what that means is are they as secure as we would want them to be? we could always make them more secure, right? we could theoretically have zero people ever coming across the border. but the borders are more secure than they ever have been before. >> i guess we could ask if the borders are more secure than they were four years ago. [laughter] >> and then there's this issue of the tone of the debate. i think the fear mongering in the debate. for instance, this issue of folks who are otm, other than mexicans, and know that you and lieutenant governo
secretary of state hillary clinton nor obama's own statement contained any sympathy for the attackers if you read the plain language of them. the administration's condemnation of religious incitement on the anti-muslim from did not come anywhere close to being an apology by any definition. i have a feeling that romney stands ready to apply this overly broad definition of apology at any opportunity in the debates or during the endgame of the campaign. >> thank you, jim. before i make my own prediction, i want to know something kind of remarkable happening in the last couple of days. both candidates have been asked and referred to fact checking, their reaction to it. we have a clip of what president obama said in a "60 minutes," interview. it was put up on the website of cbs. it was kind of interesting. >> the fact checkers have had problems with the ads on both sides, and city have been misleading and in some cases just not true. does that disturb you? some of them are your ads. >> do you see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, mistakes that are made? areas where there is no doubt s
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)